|
Tatum Girlparts posted:That's weird I figured they'd go against the old rule there, interested to hear their reasons. "Justice Kagan's decision refers to the stare decisis justification for Brulotte as "superpowred" because (1) it involves a statute; and (2) it involves contracts that have been made in reliance on the settled rule." Also, love SCOTUSBLOG: "We could hear from any of the Justices next, because Justice Kagan is the most junior justice. (And, yes, that means she does have to open the door and take notes at the Justices' Conference.) Justice Breyer did it for eleven years, so she doesn't get to complain yet."
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
dpbjinc posted:Ronald Mann writing up the Spider-Man case is a great coincidence. The patent was for a certain string-shooting toy design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
5-4 affirming LA vs Patel, no real shock there that was shady as poo poo to include 'yea and we can search the logs whenever we want'.dpbjinc posted:I knew that much, but how is Spider-Man patentable? How is it not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
No gay marriage or death to Obamacare today, as expected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Looks like no gay marriage or ACA rulings today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Can someone explain Horn vs Department of Agriculture to me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
But hey we got exciting raisin law! The hotel one could have a big impact as well depending on how broadly it is written. The court has been on a bit of a tear with regard to knocking down what police are able to do without a warrant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:But hey we got exciting raisin law! LA vs Patel and the excessive force one were both legit big wins, it kinda sucks they got overshadowed by 'no gays or obamacare booo'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Can someone explain Horn vs Department of Agriculture to me? I wonder about that, too, especially why it was only a 5-4 decision. Because after skimming over a short summary of the case, I don't see any reasons for upholding the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
According to the live blog most of the opinion was 8-1 so I'm guessing Roberts went off the deep end at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:Looks like no gay marriage or ACA rulings today. What about killing nonpartisan re-districting? EDIT: Or disparate impact analysis?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Not today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:According to the live blog most of the opinion was 8-1 so I'm guessing Roberts went off the deep end at some point. No, Sotomayor was the one who dissented from the entirety.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:No, Sotomayor was the one who dissented from the entirety. Right, I'm predicting the conservatives did some Rand Paul like reasonable for 2 sections before veering off into crazy land type thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Kagan's Kimble v. Marvel opinion has references to the Spider-Man theme song.  Edit, yessssss:  KilroyWasHere fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
KilroyWasHere posted:Kagan's Kimble v. Marvel opinion has references to the Spider-Man theme song. Odds are that she was humming it while writing the opinion. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
KilroyWasHere posted:Kagan's Kimble v. Marvel opinion has references to the Spider-Man theme song. Also this, from the conclusion of the opinion: quote:What we can decide, we can undecide. But stare decisis teaches that we should exercise that authority sparingly. Cf. S. Lee and S. Ditko, Amazing Fantasy No. 15: “Spider-Man,” p. 13 (1962) (“[I]n this world, with great power there must also come—great responsibility”).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
beaten
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Also this one:quote:Patents endow their holders with certain superpowers, but only for a limited time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Can someone explain Horn vs Department of Agriculture to me? A law that dates back to the great depression forces raisin growers to set aside some of their crop for government use. The court ruled 8-1 that this constitutes a government taking under the 5th amendment, so when the government takes the raisins it must pay fair compensation to the growers. The opinion (5 votes) said that just compensation should be the fair market value of the raisins, which has already been determined. The concurrence (3 votes) said that the government is allowed to reduce the compensation by the monetary "benefit" that the Hornes get due to the taking, and would remand the case to a lower court to determine the actual number. I think the concurrence is right here, there are precedents from real estate cases that fair compensation should be partially determined by the secondary effects (whether positive or negative) from the taking. Strict fair market value feels a little too simple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
esquilax posted:A law that dates back to the great depression forces raisin growers to set aside some of their crop for government use. The court ruled 8-1 that this constitutes a government taking under the 5th amendment, so when the government takes the raisins it must pay fair compensation to the growers. As I often find, Sotomayor's dissent seems even better than the concurrence. Basically, there was no reason to assume that the plaintiffs had not been justly compensated in the first place, and the holding of the majority damages an important principle by eroding a bright line test in Loretto, which held that every right must be "destroyed" to be ruled a taking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
KilroyWasHere posted:Kagan's Kimble v. Marvel opinion has references to the Spider-Man theme song. Between her and Notorious RBG, it's truly a shame the best justices are being wasted on the worst court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Between her and Notorious RBG, it's truly a shame the best justices are being wasted on the worst court. Hopefully modern medical science will be able to clone dead people, memories and all, sometime within the next couple decades. Then we can raise up Chief Justice For Eternity Warren and keep the current women on the court to create The Justice League. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Kagan's opinion is remarkably readable as a non-lawyer. I even found her explanation of a doctrine whose motivation has always eluded me, stare decisis, to be reasonable and clear. Hell, she even points out the obvious problem with it: a good ruling doesn't need stare decisis, since it stands on its own merits, but why should we let a bad ruling stand for reasons other than its merits? And then she explains why it's a reasonable doctrine for the Supreme Court to follow (it makes sense for lower courts) even in light of that. Neat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:As I often find, Sotomayor's dissent seems even better than the concurrence. Basically, there was no reason to assume that the plaintiffs had not been justly compensated in the first place, and the holding of the majority damages an important principle by eroding a bright line test in Loretto, which held that every right must be "destroyed" to be ruled a taking. I'd have to disagree. The government would take physical possession and hold the title to the raisins. The government would exercise total control over the raisins and could use them for any purpose they deemed raisinable. Just because the government promises to give a portion of the proceeds to the original owner doesn't mean that it wasn't taken - especially when it is up to the sole discretion of the government, and when portion is literally $0. This is an extreme enough example that it should be treated like the "permanent physical occupation" in Loretto. If the original owner does receive a portion of the proceeds from the taking, it should be considered as part of compensation for the taking. It doesn't mean that a taking didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I'd have to disagree. The government would take physical possession and hold the title to the raisins. The government would exercise total control over the raisins and could use them for any purpose they deemed raisinable. Just because the government promises to give a portion of the proceeds to the original owner doesn't mean that it wasn't taken - especially when it is up to the sole discretion of the government, and when portion is literally $0. This is an extreme enough example that it should be treated like the "permanent physical occupation" in Loretto. I agree that it is a taking... under Penn Central. The issue is that the court found for the Plaintiffs under Loretto, which waters down the test.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
KilroyWasHere posted:Kagan's Kimble v. Marvel opinion has references to the Spider-Man theme song. Is Brulotte strong? Listen, bud: the settled law is well-understood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I agree that it is a taking... under Penn Central. The issue is that the court found for the Plaintiffs under Loretto, which waters down the test. While Sotomayor's opinion definitely focuses on Loretto, isn't it her opinion that it wasn't a taking? She dissented instead of concurring in judgement, and would have let the ninth circuit's decision (that it's not a taking) stand. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
esquilax posted:While Sotomayor's opinion definitely focuses on Loretto, isn't it her opinion that it wasn't a taking? She dissented instead of concurring in judgement, and would have let the ninth circuit's decision (that it's not a taking) stand. What am I missing? I'm probably a bit out of my depth, but I think she says that the court must reject the Loretto-based argument, and that the plaintiffs then lose because they declined to make the claim under Penn Central. By arguing under Loretto, the plaintiffs argued for (and won via the majority opinion) a per se ruling which would have yielded to a more nuanced test under Penn Central. Presumably, if the plaintiffs had argued a taking under Penn Central, they would have been required to provide more justification in proving that they had not received just compensation under the existing regulatory rules, even though it would have been easier to prove the factuality of the taking itself. Obviously, in my opinion, the statute itself is intended to pass this test already as it explicitly takes and compensates. Clearly the plaintiff council read the court correctly in using this tactic as there were 5 votes to rule in favor of a Loretto-based argument. But a wise latina is correct to attempt to preserve Loretto's bright line test and avoid muddying the waters. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I'd have to disagree. The government would take physical possession and hold the title to the raisins. The government would exercise total control over the raisins and could use them for any purpose they deemed raisinable. Was that intentional?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Was that intentional? Yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Yes One might say that the raisinable purposes were various and sundried.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:One might say that the raisinable purposes were various and sundried. Goddamn you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
This makes me very happy, yet very sad that no-one I know will find this as funny as I do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:One might say that the raisinable purposes were various and sundried. Well this adds a new wrinkle to the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Well this adds a new wrinkle to the case. Discussion relating to the regulation of larger dried fruit was pruned from the record.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/613053836849192960 @SCOTUSblog Odds are that SCOTUS will decide Obamacare this Friday and same-sex marriage next Monday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Friday is 26/6 the same date as Windsor and Lawrence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/613053836849192960
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 05:45
|
|
